create_counter_intent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement ('Requires any Floe API key') and the auto-matching behavior, which adds value. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., whether the original offer becomes inactive) or what happens after creation, leaving some behavioral ambiguity typical of a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct with four short sentences, each earning its place: action, use case, automation behavior, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, use case, behavior, and auth. It omits minor context like whether the counter-intent can be revoked or how the original offer is affected, but these are not critical for using the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are adequately described ('Source intent offer hash' and 'Your wallet address'). The description does not add further parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it does not elevate the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Create a counter-intent') and identifies the target resource ('against an existing offer'). It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by calling it the 'Primary way to accept offers,' making its role clear relative to other intent tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context on when to use the tool: to accept an existing offer. The phrase 'Primary way' implies it is the go-to method, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions. The mention of 'Solver auto-matches' hints at the intended workflow but lacks explicit comparison to other create/revoke tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.